JUDGMENT : Suman Shyam, J 1. Heard Mr. E. Thiba Phom, learned Government Advocate, Nagaland, appearing for the appellants. None has appeared for the respondent though the name of counsel is shown in the cause list. 2. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 06/09/2019 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent. 3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are these:-The respondent/writ petitioner is the widow of late Hokishe Sema, who was initially temporarily appointed in a post of work-charged Jugali in the scale of pay of Rs. 190-250/-plus all other allowances, as admissible under the Rules, vide Government notification No. MEL/W-3/1280-81 dated 06/08/1977, issued by the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Mokokchung. While the deceased husband of the respondent was working as Work-charged Jugali, by order dated 07/07/1987 issued by the Executive Engineer, Junheboto Electrical Division, he was sent for attending training of Lineman at the Lineman Training Centre, Dimapur. Upon successful completion of training, late Hokishe Sema was promoted to the post of Assistant Lineman. While serving in the aforesaid post, he died in harness on 28/08/2005. At the time of his death, the services of Hokishe Sema was not regularised although he had served the department for more than 28 years. Accordingly, by the office order dated 30/11/2005, Hokishe Sema was shown to have been released from service with effect from 29/08/2005 i.e. the next day of his demise. After the premature and sudden death of her husband, the respondent/writ petitioner had to struggle to bring up her seven children with virtually no source of income since she did not receive any pensionary benefit from the department. After several years of the death of he husband, she came to know from a knowledgeable person as regards her legal right in the matter and accordingly, submitted representation dated 17/10/2017 before the concerned authority to grant pensionary benefit to her. When the representation dated 17/10/2017 failed to evoke any favourable response, the widow of the deceased employee, as writ petitioner, had approached this court by filing WP(C) No. 163/2018, seeking a Writ of Mandamus. 4. When the representation dated 17/10/2017 failed to evoke any favourable response, the widow of the deceased employee, as writ petitioner, had approached this court by filing WP(C) No. 163/2018, seeking a Writ of Mandamus. 4. By the impugned judgment and order dated 06/09/2019, the learned Single Judge had held that having served the department for more than 28 years, the authorities ought to have regularised the services of Hokishe Sema, in which event, his family would have been entitled to family pension. Observing that there was no good ground shown by the authorities so as not to regularise the services of Hokishe Sema, by taking note of the scheme of regularisation introduced by the Government of Nagaland, vide OM No. AR-3/GEN-67/2001(Pt) dated 22/09/2004 as well as a number of earlier decisions rendered by this Court in similar cases, the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition by making the following directions :- “21. The respondents should regularise service of the petitioner’s husband one day prior to date of his demise so that the petitioner and her family are entitled to pensionary benefits. The while exercise should be completed within 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 22. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.” 5. Assailing the judgment and order dated 06/09/2019, Mr. Phom, learned Government Advocate, Nagaland, has argued that by issuing a direction to regularise the services of the petitioner’s husband, the learned Single Judge has travelled beyond the pleadings in the writ petition. It is also the submission of Mr. Phom that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the fact that the writ petition as filed after 14 years since the death of Hokishe Sema and, therefore, the same was hit by laches and negligence. 6. We have carefully gone through the materials available on record and also considered the submissions advanced by the learned Government Advocate, Nagaland. 7. There is no controversy in this case about the fact that the deceased husband of the respondent /writ petitioner viz. Hokishe Sema was initially appointed as Work-charged Jugali against a pay scale. After being promoted to the post of Assistant Lineman, he had also received the regular pay scale applicable to the said post and in this manner, had continuously served the department for more than 28 years. Hokishe Sema was initially appointed as Work-charged Jugali against a pay scale. After being promoted to the post of Assistant Lineman, he had also received the regular pay scale applicable to the said post and in this manner, had continuously served the department for more than 28 years. It is also not in dispute that by the OM dated 22/09/2004, the State Government had introduced a scheme for regularisation of Work-charged employees against sanctioned vacant posts and as per the said OM, late Hokishe Sema was also eligible to be regularised in service. However, it appears from the record that although the service of the petitioner’s deceased husband was availed by the department for 28 long years, no action was taken to regularise his services as a result of which his dependant family members did not receive any pensionary benefit after his death. As a matter of fact, the whole purpose of relieving the deceased husband of the writ petitioner from service with effect from 29/08/2005, appears to be nothing else but to deny pensionary benefits to his dependant family members. 8. According to Mr. Phom, in terms of seniority, the services of late Hokishe Sema was not due for regularisation under the scheme and that is why, his services were not regularised. 9. Once an employee is recruited and his or her services is utilised continuously for long years by allowing the employee to draw salary as per the pay scale, a presumption would genuinely arise as to the requirement of the service of such temporarily appointed employee on regular basis. In such cases, it would be the duty of the Government to regularise the services of such employees against sanctioned post without undue delay. 10. The responsibility to consider regularisation of the services of a temporary employee, it must be remembered, is always on the Department. However, even in those cases where there is delay in issuing the order of regularisation of service for genuine reason, the pensionary rights of such employee or his/her dependant family members, ought not be taken away merely on the ground that the service of the employee was not regularised despite his having the necessary eligibility. However, even in those cases where there is delay in issuing the order of regularisation of service for genuine reason, the pensionary rights of such employee or his/her dependant family members, ought not be taken away merely on the ground that the service of the employee was not regularised despite his having the necessary eligibility. In other words, if the employee had continuously served against a sanctioned post, drawing regular pay scale and had rendered the requisite length of service so as to receive pension as per the Rules, the pensionary benefit of such employee ought not to be denied merely on the fortuitous circumstance that the order of regularisation of service was yet to be issued by the department on the date of his death or retirement. 11. Coming to the facts of the present case, save and except the absence of an order of regularisation of service of the deceased employee, nothing else has been shown so as to deny the relief claimed by the writ petitioner. Therefore, we are of the opinion that having availed the services of the deceased husband of the writ petitioner for 28 long years, the department should not be allowed to hide behind mere technicalities and take the plea that in order of seniority, the turn of the deceased husband of the respondent/writ petitioner for regularisation did not come as on the date of his death as nothing has been brought on record to show that any exercise for regularisation had indeed been undertaken earlier i.e. during his life time. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant on such count. 12. The learned Single Judge has also discarded the argument advanced by the learned departmental counsel regarding delay in filing the writ petition by observing that the respondent/writ petitioner, being a poor lady, coming from a rural background situated at an interior place of the State of Nagaland, may not have been aware of her legal rights so as to approach this court earlier than she had come. Moreover, the delay in approaching the Court, in any event, would not affect the right of any other person. 13. Moreover, the delay in approaching the Court, in any event, would not affect the right of any other person. 13. On a threadbare analysis of the impugned judgment and order dated 06/09/2019, we are of the opinion that the views expressed by the learned Single Judge, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, was wholly justified and, therefore, the directions issued by the impugned judgment and order, do not call for any interference by this Court. 14. For the reasons stated herein above, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. There would be no order as to costs.